Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2011, 07:31 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,402,771 times
Reputation: 589

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Married vs unmarried. Not discrimination.
Allowing non married people (whether gay or not) on ones policy is a perk, not a right.
TonytheTuna had a really good post on this, but a facially non-discriminatory policy can have a disparate discriminatory impact. If you take away a perk in such a way that it winds up overwhelmingly affecting one group at the expense of another, it could be struck down as discriminatory.

Quote:
Does AZ acknowledge gay marriage ? If not then the "partner" is not their legal family/spouse.
Gay marriage is banned in Arizona. I'm not certain if Arizona includes GLBTs in its anti-discrimination policy though.

 
Old 02-16-2011, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,464,288 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
TonytheTuna had a really good post on this, but a facially non-discriminatory policy can have a disparate discriminatory impact. If you take away a perk in such a way that it winds up overwhelmingly affecting one group at the expense of another, it could be struck down as discriminatory.



Gay marriage is banned in Arizona. I'm not certain if Arizona includes GLBTs in its anti-discrimination policy though.
I guess it depends on what the judges say.
I can see how it can be discriminatory if AZ doesn't recognize gay marriage; then they can never have a "spouse" for insurance purposes.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Fort Worthless, Texastan
446 posts, read 649,349 times
Reputation: 426
This being Arizona, the fact that they are being discriminatory like this surprises me about as much as seeing a jock on a football field.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Lyon, France, Whidbey Island WA
20,834 posts, read 17,098,118 times
Reputation: 11535
Arizona currently would sell your testicles if they were not attached.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 08:15 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,665,061 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Nothing like a little sunshine on a special interest agenda.
That's very mean-spirited. You would have to be a really hateful person in order to celebrate taking away benefits from committed couples, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 02-16-2011 at 08:32 PM..
 
Old 02-16-2011, 08:17 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,665,061 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonythetuna View Post
I am beginning to think some of these posters that post these gay issue threads on a regular basis are working for a special interest group.
I think the same thing about the posters who chime in with anti-gay comments every time there's a discussion about gay-related issues. Look in the mirror, bro.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Chicago
4,085 posts, read 4,335,025 times
Reputation: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
I think the same thing about the posters who chime in with anti-gay comments every time there's a discussion about gay-related issues. Look in the mirror, bro.
You don't see me making anti-gay threads.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago
4,085 posts, read 4,335,025 times
Reputation: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
No, I don't think that we should force them to get married...but they do have that option.

Gays and lesbians do not.
That is not the subject of this thread. Or is it?
 
Old 02-16-2011, 08:30 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,665,061 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonythetuna View Post
You don't see me making anti-gay threads.
So what? If you repeatedly make anti-comments, it can be argued that you have just as much of an "agenda" as those who start pro-gay threads or make pro-gay comments. I don't believe this is the case for either group, but since you suggested that some of us are "working" for a special interest group, then it's only fair to acknowledge that the same can be said for those who make anti-gay comments throughout the day.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,451 posts, read 7,054,063 times
Reputation: 3614
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonythetuna View Post
That is not the subject of this thread. Or is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonythetuna View Post
I am beginning to think some of these posters that post these gay issue threads on a regular basis are working for a special interest group.
It does tie into the subject of this thread...your post above however does not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top